Jump to content

Talk:Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.89.78.187 (talk) at 06:44, 30 July 2011 (→‎Criticism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article

Built a skeleton article out of the rather large bill Mr. Dodd proposed. It lacks any of the point/counterpoint I see on wikipedia a lot ... but it's a start. For reference, the old article had four references, but made no mention of any of the material in them. They were:

  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4] - Requires registration. Not used in article.

- Curious brain (talk) 02:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly helpful sources

Combine and expand?

There are at least three other articles focusing on financial regulatory reform legislation in the US: Obama financial regulatory reform plan of 2009, Wall Street reform and Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. With the legislative process in the US winding down and with this bill about to become a law, does it make sense to combine and expand these three to cover the process leading up to enactment and the content and effects of the final law? Bond Head (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger from Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

Now that the legislation has been passed by both houses under the Dodd-Frank name, I think it expedient to merge the information into the (admittedly shorter) article with that name. It will also be a useful way to prune the information contained in this article to remove things that are poorly phrased, out-of-date, or otherwise inaccurate. Lockesdonkey (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Lack of Quality

This post has been singled out for criticism by a law librarian because -- in footnote 30 -- it cites the wrong document from the legislative history. This resulted in at least one serious error being introduced in the text. See discussion here: http://legalresearchplus.com/2010/11/16/un-legislative-history/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.75.57 (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This legislation passed yesterday, and is being touted as a major reform. The article needs to be updated. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it needs more than that, adjusting tags. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks the narrative coherence common to most articles, e.g. that for the "Health Care Reform" legislation, except at the top level where it reflects the driving sloganeering. Is that because it also is tepid and inadequate petty reform where a complete revolutionary restructuring at the most fundamental level is required, and is much more sausage like even than the former? If a crisis is precipitated where its provisions prohibiting the kind of bail out of capital that occurred in 2008 face a similar situation will Capitalism implode or is it supposed to move to break up the existing structure of Capital so as to prevent this? This doesn't seem to be getting the attention it merits. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the article nor this talk page are the appropriate place to debate the merits of this Act or of Financial Reform. This is an encyclopedia, please adhere to Wikipedia's standards.—Markles 01:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeking such a debate, but seeking an explanation for the contrast between the treatment of the two articles. The other article was near its current state before the passage of the corresponding legislation (to which I made an edit on 2010-03-28). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I think I misunderstood you before. My mistake! This article is not about financial reform, it's about a specific act enacted to address the reform. Maybe there's an article on the broader topic somewhere else, I don't know. This article is a decent and dry discussion of the many provisions in a long intricate statute; which I think is commendable. I've added a lot of formatting to it, but I'm not able to claim credit for the vast amount of NPOV content.—Markles 02:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's what I wanted to bring attention to. The other article has the expository prose which is the encyclopædic norm and which this article lacks because it is basically a recapitulation in outline of the titles of the legislation itself. It is neither an explanation of the legislation or of the fundamental questions behind it (not saying it should be the latter, am saying it should be the former). This article as it stands has content more appropriate to somewhere between Wikisource and Wikinews rather than Wikipedia. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I too thought of Wikisource when I first read this. But it's not word-for-word, it's prosy examination, albeit incomplete and dry. I think it's sufficient for an article about a statute. Yes, you're right that a good introduction is necessary. Write one, WP:BB. —Markles 02:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also noting that my impression that it might be "tepid and superficial" was itself superficial and a rereading of the article revealed the underlying truth noted; in fact it is sweeping as was implicit in my first comments and which is doubtless the basis upon which the minority party is calling for its repeal. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is indeed poorly-organized and needs to adopt more summary style and use more secondary sources. If you glance at Obama financial regulatory reform plan of 2009, you'll see a couple freely-available summaries from law firms Skadden and DavisPolk. I think we should consider merging the latter article with this one. I imagine that it should be organized topically, as the law firms do. I don't think we should organize it by effective date like the healthcare bill as the effective dates in the bill are less key and often less clear than they are in the healthcare reform bill. II | (t - c) 03:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obama financial regulatory reform plan of 2009 merged with Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. --Nemesis63 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gbbinning, please slow down

We need to do a couple things here:

  • (1) rely on secondary sources. Good summaries come from THOMAS, Davis Polk, and Skadden;
  • (2) We need to reduce the number of bookmarked sections, which are really making this page difficult to navigate, and focus on concise summaries of major provisions to start with. There are a lot of people coming to this page for the quick summary of what's going on, and they are being left disappointed by what is practically a copy of the bill itself;
  • (3) Ensure accuracy. If we're going to organize by titles, we need to make sure the content in these title sections are actually in that title - based on my look through Title I, that does not seem to be the case currently. II | (t - c) 04:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gbbinning, however, it is moving in the right direction, so good work :) 72.228.177.92 (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perspective

I find myself providing information the same way I would like to receive information. I have learned over time that relying on secondary or tertiary information for a summary tends to lead to a misunderstanding of the original intent. I find this especially true when looking at legislation. Even when reviewing the sources suggested for this bill, written by very prominent legal minds, I fund myself not in total agreement with the way the summaries are written. Summaries, by their very nature, tend to be biased by an individuals Philosophical constructs. In other words, I find that a summary of a summary may not produce very reliable information.

I started contributing to this bill because I wanted information on it and there was none that I found. Personally, I prefer many and detailed footnotes, because all to often I have found that when I read other documents, the summary of what I read has a different slant than what I read in the original document.

I would suggest that when one deletes content and replaces it with a summary, that deleted content be placed in a reference footnote, rather than actually eliminated – that is partly what footnotes are for….

I agree that that this is a very long document, and would suggest that rather that summarizing further, it should be split. The logical splits would be the 10 or so “Short Titles” that usually (but not always) correspond to the various Titles of the bill. The main article could be the evaluation and history, with the Short Titles being the summary of the various sections of the legislation. In effect, the main section would provide the Knowledge portion of the analysis of the bill (answering the "So What" question - how the bill will inpact society, the history of the development of the bill, etc.) and the splits would handle the Information section of the bill -- the summary of the key points. Personally, were I to provide any additional content, it would be in the form of Information (a summary) rather than Knowledge (what it means).

In terms of slowing down – I do not anticipate adding much new content – those sections that still need content do not interest me and I find it very difficult and time consuming to focus on providing original and unbiased summaries of legislation if I am not interested. And I find it even less interesting to provide summaries of summaries (I find myself going back to the original document to be sure that I agree that the summary is an accurate summary of the original document).

In terms of accuracy (3 above) -- I took what was already provided and overlayed my contributions on top. I did not delete, unless there were things that were clearly contrary to the final bill (I assume that some of the content was created when the bill was still evolving in committee). I assume that some content can be moved, but since I could not reference what section of the bill the summary originated (references were to the bill itself rather that a specific section of the bill), I was reluctant to make those changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gbbinning (talk • contribs) 14:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pages

The length of a bill in "pages" is not a clear term. It's relative to font size, paper size and so forth. It violates WP:POV because it's very often used (POV) by opponents of bills to imply that it's "too long."—Markles 23:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sections turned into bold headings

Why were the sections "===…" turned into bolded headings with the semi-colons? —Markles 23:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially every provision was being given its own anchored header. In many cases single provisions were being granted multiple anchored headers. Given that there are over a thousand provisions in this bill, that is simply not workable and makes the TOC impenetrable. I changed them to bolded headings in the interim period while I work on consolidating the sections. II | (t - c) 00:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current State

The article is drastically improved since my first comments and removed the tags (which were ones I originally placed, but which were then removed and replaced again by somebody else). However added them back since it is in flux and I think the two current tags match the empty title which I considered pulling here, and my suggestion in the next sentence. A fan-out into sub articles might not be too early to consider, that's the restructuring I'm referring to not the current outline of the article which is fine SFAICT. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to register an account so you're not just an anonymous IP address?? (See Wikipedia:Why create an account?) —Markles 19:03, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to do most of my edits anonymously, however this ISPs leases typically endure for months or years. Also changed your list item into a normal thread indent mark. Lycurgus (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

Being that the bill is the subject of political debate, I believe a section on criticisms of the bill would be appropriate. I am not an experienced editor, so I would like to suggest the possibility of writing such a section to good editors who could assume the task fairly and objectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.37.19 (talk) 04:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't this happened? On 7/28/11, The Daily Show (a major source of liberal political satire) made some particularly bold claims against this bill, which I think should be noted.--74.89.78.187 (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Headings and main pages

Because this Act is huge, and hard to understand, the only way to do it is to separate each title into its own main page, particularly where the Title is called its own Act. This should be a summary page (and hopefully and easy-to-understand one). So what I've done is a start on that. Each of the titles, where there was a "short title" as an Act now has a main page underneath the heading. I've also turned subheadings in most places to semi colons, because otherwise it'll just get clogged up and messy: and it should in any case be slimmed down, put into prose style and where expansion is necessary, that can go on the main pages. Hope this helps. Wikidea 15:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree and will work to prevent these new pages. We need to focus on this article. Maintaining a dozen different articles to an even moderate level of quality will be impossible with the current number of editors. If we use summary style, we can cover each title well enough in a two to three digestible paragraphs. II | (t - c) 16:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But hold on, I'm saying the same thing! In my experience, we're going to get loads of sub-articles developing anyway. I only created one new one for the corporate governance reform that I'm interested in, but lots of others were already there, and I just pasted in the links. But this is the point: if we have subarticles for the morass of extra stuff that people write (which they will!) then this page should have good, concise, principled summaries and hopefully of good, digestible quality like you say. Wikidea 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle-blower Provisions

I believe Section 922 should get its own article. There is just so much there. Check out the proposed rules that came out on November 3rd. I am currently writing a law review student note on the topic. But I am not an experienced editor so if someone else could get the article started that would be a huge help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danteshek (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bankers Association is not 'Economists'

There's a real problem in having a section titled 'Economists' critique' which then leads off with a criticism from the American Banking Association, an interested party in the argument, not economists. Changes should be made here - either the comment should be removed or the heading of the section should be changed. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As per my comment above, I changed the name of the section heading to 'Criticism', since that's a more accurate description of what's actually in the section. Nwlaw63 (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dodd–Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act&oldid=442163059"