Jump to content

Talk:European Central Bank

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gn842 (talk | contribs) at 02:46, 20 October 2011 (→‎Citation requirements: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Condition of the ECB article (continued)

I fear I must now correct myself! (One should desist from writing comments late on Christmas Eve, as they can be affected by excessive "good cheer". I apologise also for the typographical errors.) The amount of "just under EUR 6 billion" is the subscribed capital of the ECB. The amount actually paid-up is a little over EUR 4 billion (due to the fact that NCBs of member States that have not adopted the euro do not pay up their capital subscriptions in full). In cleaning up this article, reference should also be made to the much more accurate linked Wikipedia articles on the European System of Central Banks (of which the ECB is one), and on European economic and monetary union. --Ingramip (talk) 10:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i have german marks where i can change them into euro? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.121.136 (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deutsche Mark banknotes will be exchanged into Euro (I think free of charge) either at the Deutsche Bundesbank headquarters in Frankfurt am Main or at a Landeszentralbank in Germany (or alternatively at a branch of the Bundesbank) for an unlimited period. See the web page of the Bundesbank for further information. Ingramip (talk) 07:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms for Monetization and currency creation, sovereign debt

I've asked a published author on the ECB working at the Federal Reserve to look over the material.Gn842 (talk) 19:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Central bank purchase of a European version of U.S. Treasury Bills

This sentence was recently added: "In response to the crisis of 2010, some proposals have surfaced for a collective European bond issue that would allow the central bank to purchase a European version of U.S. Treasury Bills". The reference given talks about fiscal union and fiscal transfers, but there is no mention of the ECB buying anything like tresaury bills. Other sources, and the footnotes provided for the following sentences also explain a number of issues, but not the purchase of treasury bills. So I find that the sources do not support the statement. I have a feeling that solvency and liquidity are being confused. If no reference can be provided that talks about the purchase of treasury bills, I think this sentence neeeds to go. The following footnote also seems unnecessary; it seems to explain something for an American audience, but it is not the point that needs explanation. What is the whole paragraph trying to explain?

  • Proposals for fiscal union?
  • Proposals for issuing European bonds?
  • Proposals for purchasing (something like) treasury bills?

As it is, it seems to me that various issues are being conflated.--Boson (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shareholders, member banks?

According to the Powers and Objectives section, "The use of capital to offset a loss transfers the loss to the bank's shareholders: the member banks." According to the Organization section, shareholders are central banks of member states. Who's right? --Chealer (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain where you see a conflict? --Boson (talk) 08:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right... according to "Powers and objectives" again, "Member banks, of which there are several thousand, bid for short term repo contracts of two weeks' to three months' duration." But there aren't thousands of central banks. So the two versions point to different numbers of shareholders. --Chealer (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I hadn't noticed that. I have changed "member banks" to "eligible banks" where I think it is appropriate and provided a source that compares operations by the Eurosystem, the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England. I also changed "several thousand" to 1500, assuming that the original editor was referring to the eligible banks mentioned in the ECB source. Hope that helps. --Boson (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slant towards current events

The usage stats show that when the ECB is in the news regarding the Euro crisis we get readership spikes approaching 2000 hits a day. (Goes down to 300 to 400 on slower days)

Under these conditions and given the gravity of the topic I think a bit of present-history bias is warranted. We are going to have opportunities down the road to shorten things up--for example, if Greece leaves the EU we can delete all the discussion about how it might happen. Furthermore the whole Euro might unravel.

In the meantime, this article is a resource for people trying to get a picture of how the euro and the ECB and the European project are all intertwined. Since I own several Britannica hardcover editions I understand the idea of historical perspective, but on the other hand the advantage of electronic format is that we can give the present a bit more weight and remove it as it shifts into the past--after all, central banking is usually boring, and when the crisis is past the need for updates will markedly decline.

Gn842 (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)GN842[reply]

I don't think the recentism tag is even appropriate here. The crisis is the single most important event in the history of the ECB, and is likely to remain so, even if the crisis blows over. -- Walt Pohl (talk) 13:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Abhilasha369 (talk · contribs) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article would certainly pass as a good article. The only issue is the so called charge of "recentism" in the "crisis of 2011" section. Done Maybe in the introduction section, a sentence can be mentioned about the price stability duty of the ECB. Though this is a subset of "administering monetary policy", it would be nice to categorically mention it. Apart from these two things, everything seems good.  Done Abhilasha369 (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

  1. Well Written: There are typos and grammatical errors in the article. Example: "Eligible banks, of which there are about 1500 may bid for short term repo contracts of two weeks' to three months' duration." Basically, s' is used to show plural possession. Here there is no possession.  Done. Another example: "On 9 May 2010, the 27 member states[17] of the European Union agreed to incorporate the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) a special purpose vehicle (SPV) off balance sheet of European Central Bank (ECB) placing bonds to raise money to financing the Deficit spending that European Governments used to replace a share of banking system losses. " - I don't know what the meaning of this is.. Please paraphrase to make the point clear. Done More examples - "This fact give serious problems to liquidity of Interbank lending market involving trust that banks have each other and forcing ECB to use unconventional measures about Monetary policy." Done  Done!
  2. MOS: Formatting is needed in certain areas. Example: "This preference has typically led the ECB to argue that the weaker member countries must (a) allocate considerable national income to servicing debts and (b) scale back a wide range of national expenditures (such as education, infrastructure, and welfare transfer payments) in order to make their payments." It would be better if you used bullets for these points. A break from the text is required here.  Done
  3. Neutrality is an issue. For example, a statement like "Although "unthinkable," a collapse of the euro (with a reversion to individual national currencies) became, at the end of 2010, a topic of speculation in the financial press." is highly opinionated, unless it's a quote.  Done
  4. Verifiable: Citation is inadequate for the size of the article. Every fact/statistic has to be cited. Every opinion/analysis has to be cited. For example, "These tools are also used by the United States Federal Reserve Bank, but the Fed does more direct purchasing of financial assets than its European counterpart." must be cited. There are many many sentences like this.  Done
  5. I'm sorry if you felt my first comment was unsatisfactory. I was hoping you would take care and answer the issues I raised. That way I could promote the article to GA status after your edits. But you did not address the issues at hand so I was wondering what happened. Anyway, I would love to give the article GA status but the above concerns need to be addressed first, according to WP:WIAGA, as you rightly mentioned. All the best with the edits.

Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Grammar - see detailed review
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead section - see review
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Citation is inadequate
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Refer to my review.
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    There are some unsolved issues.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My comments regarding your review
  1. Please consult a mentor at WP:GAN#M, if possible.
  2. Use the 3rd level or 4th level headers (=== ===; ==== ====)
  3. If stating an issue, please state where and as in No.5 of the review, when...
  4. In number 2 of the review, amount of resources is in point a, and point b is reliable sources...
  5. But I agree with inadequate sources...

– Plarem (User talk contribs) 15:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a mentor is a great idea. I've already spoken to someone about it. Awaiting response. Till then, maybe you can work on improving the article with more citations. Abhilasha369 (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, how come you put Stability at Neutral? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 17:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to take a look at this article. I'll leave some comments later tonight or tomorrow. Protonk (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk's comments

  • I'll take a look at the original review comments in a moment. For now I want to make some general comments about the article itself to help it along to GA status. Apologies if I repeat some comments from above.
  • The lede of this article is too short. Remember that a lede is there to both generate interest in the article and also to provide a relatively complete summary of its contents. For an article of this length you can have a lead of 2-4 paragraphs before really running into length issues.  Done
  • The "Power and Objectives" section is better off split between authority and mandates. What channels the bank acts through are interesting independent of the goal of the actions.  Done
  • I agree with the tag on Sovereign debt crises. The section is much too long and better off written in summary style. Done
  • Independence and future may be better off split by putting the "indpendence" content in a subsection of power and objectives and the "future" content in a subsection of history  Done
  • You should (though this isn't a GA requirement) split your explanatory notes and references as described in WP:REFGROUP.
  • Images check out.
  • The description of US open market operations isn't 100% correct. See Open_market_operations#USA (and not the atrocious Monetary Policy of the USA article). The vast majority of day to day open market operations in the US occur through repo and reverse repo transactions, not outright purchases. There are many salient differences between the Fed and the ECB, but both use repo transactions.

Sourcing/specific comments

  • "Tensions were abated by a gentleman's agreement in which Duisenberg would stand down before the end of his mandate, to be replaced by Trichet, an event which occurred in November 2003." Is there a source for this claim?  Done, referenced and the wording a bit tweaked.
  • "The primary objective of the ECB is to maintain..." This paragraph is awkwardly worded. The primary objective is price stability, so say that, then transition to the ECB definition for price stability, then compare to the US and (maybe) other large central banks (China, Japan, England?). Then include a little sidebar explaining how price stability and inflation are basically the same thing. You can even reference this working paper.  Done, tweaked the wording, but trying to keep it as simple as possible.
  • "It is interesting that all four countries are located geographically on the periphery of the Eurozone." interesting to whom?  Done, removed.
  • the fourth and fifth paragraphs in Power and Objectives start to see sourcing thin out and claims become broader and more discursive. I can see two solutions. First, reorganizing and shrinking the sovereign debt crises section will allow you to simply edit out claims in disparate sections regarding the recent crisis. Second, there are a number of great articles (both in newspapers and in journals) looking at how the debt crises directly implicate the mandate and model of the ECB (and there are counterclaims as well). Find those and use them to anchor those sections in reliable source material so readers know they aren't being lead astray.  Done
  • I won't make too many comments on the debt crises section as I think a lot of the sourcing and focus problems there would be solved by trimming. the trimming. However despite my suggestion that this section be smaller it does represent a fairly good account of book value problems and the (semi) unique problem of sovereign bonds as collateral in the ECB.  Done the referencing.

Overall and comments on original review

  • First off, the comments I made are merely suggestions. The decision to pass or not pass the article rests w/ the original GA reviewer unless they ask for a second opinion. While I feel some of the comments I made above will help the authors get to featured status it is neither a requirement nor a full peer review.
  • I haven't looked at the page history for the GA review but merely reading the current revision leads me to believe that this review is within our expectations for how an editor should conduct a GA review. The template with positive/negative/neutral isn't a requirement of the GAN process, but it can sometimes help. I don't use it on my reviews.
  • Sometimes GA reviews can be very general. This does not impugn the reviewer as they may not feel comfortable writing a laundry list of small complaints (each which could be fixed be the reviewer) and instead want to ask editors to take a closer look at the article on a few key dimensions.
  • As a GA reviewer, remember that your job is to:
    • Be a gatekeeper.
    • Be a resource for help. If you know something (anything) about the topic, suggest sources. If you don't, suggest alternate wording where you see problems. Link to helpful tools or templates where needed.
    • Be honest. Don't worry too much about whether or not you are out of your depth or providing dumb suggestions. If something feels off, do your best to articulate it and help the editors. If you don't see a claim in a cited source, bring that up.
  • I don't know how best to review an article with specific pointers. Sometimes reviewers go by citation numbers, but as an article gets edited those numbers change (e.g. if you removed a section wholesale) and that can be confusing. I provide quotes for specific passages or go by section headers (easier if there are more sections). Just try and get a feel for how best to communicate where you are in an article. It helps editors reading your review tremendously.

I hope all this helps. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collated assessment

Clearly, the following aspects need to be improved:

  1. Citations
  2. Grammar/Paraphrasing
  3. Layout (to make the article easier to read in terms of flow)
  4. Time sensitive sections need to be clubbed together in an appropriate section

So once the "On Hold" time expires, I will read the article again hoping the above problems have been sorted out. Thank you Protonk, you're an awesome mentor! All the best, Plarem. You've got some edits to make.

Regards - Abhilasha369 (talk) 14:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • One more thing. The "on hold" time is a suggestion more than a bright line. What I do in GA reviews is mention the on-hold time and simply say that if the article is being worked on that time limit is less important. So if I review C++ and no one makes material changes or comments in 7 days I'll fail it. However if I review another article and people are responding or editing enough that I don't forget about the article completely, I'll just check back later. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, subheadings in GA reviews need to be lvl 3 or above. The GA review lives on a subpage and is transcluded onto the talk page. If you use lvl 2 headers (two equal sings) you will confuse the parser and the page won't transclude properly. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hi, I have noticed that you've made a few edits and added some references. However, the references are still inadequate for an article of this importance! For example, the European sovereign debt crisis section is anyway a contentious issue and it has (on an average) one reference per paragraph, whereas every sentence should be referenced. And besides, there are so many news references to this subject, so it's not as if its an obscure topic.

  1. All about the Euro Debit Crisis
  2. european-problems-get-more-complicated
  3. Debt-crisis archive
  4. Working paper on Euro Debt

Abhilasha369 (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that every sentence should be referenced. Every contentious claim or potentially dubious claim should be referenced. I'm happy with the article right now (so long as someone takes out the tags on the crisis section, if they are no longer warranted), but the decision to pass is up to you. Protonk (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Is the comparison to the ECB's conterpart, the U.S. Fed Reserve necessary in this article? Sure, anyone can just go onto the United States Federal Reserve article on Wikipedia. Is this necessary? – Plarem (User talk contribs) 20:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to have a compare/contrast are, but that can also be created into a seperate page.Meatsgains (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be okay top add copyrighted photos to the article? --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final assessment

I think this article meets the GA criteria now. It should be passed. Best Abhilasha369 (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for reviewing it. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 10:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise that you need to change the template on the top of the talk page and place {{Good article}} on top of the talk page as described on WP:GAN. – Plarem (User talk contribs) 10:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nvm, I'll do it myself... – Plarem (User talk contribs) 11:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation requirements

I'm reading in the GA section review that the article must have one citation per sentence. The notion that every sentence "must" have a citation is simply wrong. I've been writing academic stuff for thirty years. A single citation can "govern" a paragraph if the entire paragraph is abstracting or summarizing from that one citation. Otherwise you end up with a single citation being repeated over and over. This generally is not done in academic articles and it is not done in encyclopedias either; in fact, the norm in print encyclopedias is not to have citations at all, although the Britannica often included extensive "works cited" that were not however referenced on a line by line or even paragraph basis.

In any case I think I've made my point. The article has at this writing over forty citations which is heap big plenty and it will accumulate more going forward. Some citations which remain relevant were annihilated in the recent shortening of the article.

That's the nature of a wiki project I suppose. However, I stand by the statement that one citation per sentence is not necessary. It is not even customary in some of the most densely documented scholarly works around (e.g. Wallerstein's Modern World System v. III, a book which is 40% bibliography in terms of pages).

However, I have made a point not to argue too much with editors, so I'll let it go. GN842.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_Central_Bank&oldid=456456450"